I can't agree with the writers analysis on the reason for "populism" as he calls it, if "populism" was not popular it would not be winning elections and promoting referenda. It is far too simplistic to "accuse" movements that object to the end of the nation state to be motivated by a twisted version of identity politics and a retrogressive view of nationalism, frankly the writer could not be further from the truth.

In my experience in the UK the anti Europe stance which manifested itself in the Brexit vote stemmed from a totally reasonable and understandable series of events which culminated in NO to continued membership of the EU - here is a rough chronology:

1) The UK were asked if they wanted to join an economic "TRADING BLOC" back in 19752) For decades ever since joining the EEC the British people were told after EVERY meeting and after ever Treaty signing, that the UK was : Sovereign; Red Lines had been preserved; and that to all intents and purposes nothing had changed3) UK Politicians of all parties were too scared to discussed the end game of the EU with their voters, but hoped that as time went on and the morphing of the EEC into the EU and the constant entwining of the EU with the UK would make leaving impossible and as the EU speeded up it plans to integrate and push the UK into a country called Europe the end game became clear and extremely worrying, as we saw where this was going.4) Labour tried to change the ancient County Structure of Government and administration which had been operating for over a thousand years. It wanted to remove England as a national identity and break her into 9 Euro Regions. England did not identify with these artificial regions, which ignored history and our love of County Emblems and distinct county differences. Labour tried and failed to get "regional Government" into England with the vote in the North East - the people REJECTED regional government by 70% of the vote. - At no time had any politician asked the people of England what they wanted - they pushed this Euro model ahead without consent or consultation & it failed. 5) Brussels published a MAP of the New Europe. It included details of Europe simply becoming administrative regions of Brussels. England was see in this map simply as 9 Euro regions and the name ENGLAND was actually missing from the Map - this impertinence caused outrage and deep hurt and anxiety by the people of England, especially when the "region of Scotland" was made co-terminal with the notional nation of Scotland, and Wales, was made a "Welsh region" co-terminal with the nation of Wales. Apparently when questions were asked about why ENGLAND had disappeared we were told that England was "TOO BIG" to simply be a region. Remember no one had voted to do away with our nation and join a country called Europe, even the basics of consent was missing.6) The BBC declined to run any serious programmes on the EU, what it was trying to do, what it was, how it worked and how things had changed over the years following successive treaties, the media deliberately left the people of the UK in the dark. Who has the time or inclination to read Treaties - that's what we elect our politicians to do and to look after our interests and to tell us the truth!7) The Lisbon Treaty should have been a Constitutional Treaty, but it was clear it would not be passed by a number of European countries and to avoid the danger of the Constitutional vote not being carried, the EU converted it into a Treaty, which (as far as the EU are concerned) does not need a vote. The discredited fag end government of Gordon Brown rushed through the Lisbon Treaty without discussion and it became apparent this was one of the final nails in the British sovereignty debate, as the ogre of "majority voting" was unleashed, which could consign British objections to the dustbin and make us a slave with no voice for eternity. We had entered a post democratic age, with no vote and no knowledge of the implication of what had just happened.8) The EU have and continue to treat the people of Europe with contempt, they imagine we do not see their vast incompetences in the management of the Eurozone; their flawed approach to international trade and barriers and their failure to open up trade with emerging markets and their dependence on subsidies and protections for failing industries and their obsession with red tape which chokes of endeavour and entrepreneurism. The EU rewards countries like Poland who export their people because their economy is so poor, with "infrastructure" funds and payments, so their people benefit from the education; health and opportunities provided by other EU states (at the expense of other states) , whilst also getting huge funds from the EU to pay for their continued failures - this model does not encourage advancement, the more lame duck you (in the EU) you are the more cash you get...where is the incentive to improve????9) The EU gave the UK a massive extra bill a couple of years ago, because (apparently) they had miscalculated what the UK should pay into the EU as they had overlooked income from illegal trading such as prostitution? Frankly the British public were appalled and outraged at this impertinent surcharge, especially when we were suffering to try and get our budgets in order.10) The EU is a hated institution by many countries in Europe. Just check the trust indicator on Eurobarometer - very few countries have any trust in the EU Elites - why? Because they are out of touch; they don't consult; they are autocratic; they are incompetent and they lie and deceive.11) The UK asked for help with serious problems with inward migrants. 300,000 net per annum. These numbers are bigger then some of our existing cities and there is no let up in the number, according to the EU there is no limit that the UK should not be able to stand. Fact is many immigrants dislike most of Europe to migrate to, whether the locals are unfriendly or the economies are failing, so the UK as one of the few economies of positivity are flooded with would be economic migrants. Nearly 1,000,000 from Poland and 5 million in the last ten years, and even after that Merkely insists we should take more of her million migrants she opened the door too - absolutely crazy!! Cameron asked the EU to help with the numbers we were being overwhelmed with....they refused to assist and refused to acknowledge our problems. This is another massive problem with the EU its policies are often flawed, when they go wrong on the ground they refuse to admit they have made a mistake and force countries to continue with the most appalling consequences. The ONE SIZE FITS ALL mantra is wrong, extremely damaging and in the case of the UK the people rejected it.

Unless the EU accepts that one size most certainly doesn't fit all, and a degree of national profiling and personalising of policies for countries should be a crucial part of the mix, I do not see the EU in its current form continuing. If Merkel is going to make unilateral decisions on admitting a million + refugees, without earnest discussions or consent from the rest of Europe when we are forced to have "free movement" then we have our doors open to disaster with no control - only a madman would say that is a fair and reasonable policy.

Populism, is no more than the people rising up in objection to unelected deceitful politicians who are ruining their countries, ruining their cultures, their smart areas - just look at the filth and mess Paris has become, with thousands of homeless economic migrants from Africa filling up the streets, living under bridges and along the Champs Elysees - the complete failure to support the UK in financing camps near war torn zones, or to take seriously the clear and present danger of militant islam, now killing our peoples across Europe is a scandal which will break Europe.

Populism is the will of the people, an intelligent educated people who increasingly believe the EU is not up to the job it has set itself and current politicians do not have the skills, intellect or solutions to deal with the pandora's box of problems they have unleashed on the continent. Give people more credit, the EU in its ivory towers has been walking away from the people of Europe for decades - BREXIT was a wake up call. Read more

The most important election for the future of the EU is the German election. It's pretty much certain that whoever the french centre-right choose as a candidate will be the next president of France. Juppé is a good choice, but overall the french political class has always wanted to push Europe further, especially with regards to fixing the fundamental problems of the Eurozone.

The problem is if Merkel wins another term, the EU is pretty much done with. By the end of her term, Greece will have probably fallen out of the Eurozone, and more eurosceptic parties will have been elected across the continent given the continued anemic growth and high unemployment that will inevitably result from her "Do nothing" approach to Eurozone problems.

If the SPD gets in, we might just be able to start emitting Eurobonds and launching a 150bn/year (over 10 years) stimulus program, aimed primarily at Green infrastructure and perhaps some common defense capabilities. This would get the ball rolling again, allow member states to reduce their debt while also substantially reducing unemployment. This is the only way I see of saving the Eurozone. This Europe A Europe B business will lead nowhere. Either we're able to make bold decisions for Europe as a whole, or we might as well stop here. Read more

Why should the destruction of identity be called "progressive" and why should it be "Europe’s only option"? Why should a conservative position be "incompatible with long-term progress" and why should the glorification of unrestrained capitalism be called "pro-European"?

If we just consider their "progress" of the last decade then we see a political system on its last legs. "Europe A" is kept together only via the printing press and in the meantime they need 80.000.000.000 euros freshly printed every month to prevent Club Med from bankruptcy. In 10 years time, Draghi will have completely monetized Italian public debt - and that is a solution even the Soviets did not dare. It is in complete contradiction to all promises that were made and all treaties that were agreed on and in general contradiction to a democratic constitution. We see their assaults on economic openness via planned economic interventions and the abolition of interest rates leading to a zombified economy. We see their assaults on democratic values, the elimination of parliamentary control and of the balance of powers, rendering democratic elections ever more irrelevant. We see uncontrolled mass immigration and terrorists free floating around. We see parallel societies and state institutions receding from no-go areas and while the system is consequently losing credibility and legitimacy, we see growing resistance among ordinary people and we see their criminalisation and villainisation leading to ever more polarized and fragmented societies with ever less possibility for compromise (e.g. the German president spoke of "Helldeutschland" and "Dunkeldeutschland", i.e. Bright Germany and Dark Germany).

Regarding all this failure and remembering the deeply ideologic connotation of the term "progressive" - rooted in the concepts of dialectical materialism and used by communist dictators like Erich Honecker who also said "Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer" (always forward, never backwards) - we should reject this strange alliance between cultural marxism and unrestrained capitalism that wants to take over Europe. We should deconstruct their Orwellian newspeak - that when they say "openness" they actually mean anarchy and when they say "tolerance" they actually mean nihilism. We should indeed look backwards. We should remember that the communist takeover was always preceded by the formation of a national "unified front". We should remember that before the "EU" takeover we had a currency that did not need to be "saved" once a year, that we had a parliamentary system that provided open debate and compensation between different social groups, that we had freedom of opinion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and that we had peace and cooperation in Europe. We should not let them destroy our cultural identity even if it bars their ways to "progress" (i.e. the implementation of a communist system or the profits of big business and big banks). We should say them that their perception of "Europe" is not our perception of "Europe" and that their interests are not our interests.

They once said that Brexit would be impossible - and now Brexit has become possible. Merkel once said there would be no alternative to her policy - now there is the Alternative for Germany. This all shows that democracy though in intensive care is not yet dead, that on the contrary it has started to breath again and that change has now become a real option. Read more

Peter,I thank you for your thoughtful and eloquent rebuttal. I couldn't agree more. Enough already with this we need more Europe answer to this current mess that EU is in. Unfortunately, in the current system this is impossible hence I feel EU will just break apart because the cultural Marxist /neoliberal Freetraders will cling to their ideas until entire ship sinks. Prime example, the subject article..just more denial.Jan Read more

In light of next year's general elections in France and Germany, Kemal Derviş says a political reshuffling is necessary if Europe wants to survive and thrive. The world has changed and Europe too. In this regard, "it makes little sense to expect the old alignments to be able to respond adequately to today’s policy needs or political dynamics."The political landscape in Europe - unlike the US - is highly fragmented. In most countries parties don't win an outright majority of seats in parliament, that they can rule without forming a coalition government across party lines. In most cases mainstream alliances are formed, pushing the society either to centre-left or the left, or to centre-right or the right.But in recent decade across Europe and beyond, voters complain about their leaders being out of touch with their grievances, prompting populists to claim that they can to put back politicians in touch with voters and reinvigorate democracy from the grassroots. With the rise of far-right nationalist parties in northern Europe to left-wing anti-austerity protest groups in southern Europe, meanstream politicians are feeling the public's wrath. Even though the populists' snake-soil rhetoric can't be taken fully at face value, it sows national discord and seeks to undermine the European project, seeing it as the source of many social evils. For this reason the author proposes a two-tier Europe, with "Europe A" for the "more deeply integrated" eurozone countries. "Europe B" would make up of another group of countries that are "more diverse and loosely connected."The author hopes that the "political dynamic" in both France and Germany, would be able to defeat anti-EU populist parties. He hopes President Alain Juppé "could cooperate with a Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron trying to develop a 'beyond the past' young center-left movement" and to prevent the populist leader Marine Le Pen of the far-right Front National from taking France out of the EU.According to the author the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Germany is "insufficiently pro-European." He says Angela Merkel's party "is limited by a conservative wing defined by views that are not compatible with long-term progress in Europe." Besides it faces competition from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), "which has lately grown in popularity." Should the CDU win big next year, its "pro-European elements ... must work with allies on the left – namely, most of the Social Democrats and the Greens." Together they could "build a new Europe, with more joint responsibilities for countries in Europe A and flexible arrangements with countries in Europe B."The author believes that "center-left pro-Europe forces /are the/ one that could overcome and ultimately dissipate each camp’s more extremist elements, thereby ensuring that anti-European political tendencies cannot block progress." A "progressive alliance" is needed because it is "more reliable" and be able to forge deeper ties "with common goals dominating a shared agenda." Indeed, without "a deep political restructuring aimed at building new progressive majorities" Europe will not survive, "and the assault on economic openness and democratic values will continue to gain traction around the world – with potentially devastating consequences." The question is whether current and future EU leaders have the courage to make unpopular decisions, and the time to oversee their implementations.﻿ Read more

This is a very positive and rational line up of suggestions. I thought for a long time that a variable Europe (concentric, variable geography, multi-speed etc.) should have been on the agenda for a long time. Unfortunately, while it was discussed several times, it was never taken seriously. I do understand the reasons why that was the case and hindsight is rather unhelpful at the moment.As a centrist, liberal (occasionally more social-democratic) progressive who is firmly convinced of the need for the EU, I feel very pessimistic about any possibility of things improving. We are now back in Weimar and the end has already begun. I simply can’t see how a different and more successful economic model could be find and willingly adopted by a majority of countries in order to generate a fast and dramatic recovery, reduction in unemployment and perceptible improvement in living standards. Even the academic reality of such a model is almost impossible to locate. The current political establishment is paralysed by dogmatic attachments to yesterday’s models of both economy and politics. And because of that, there is no ability to compromise or to reach out to build a coalition. We lack the models or ideas, but we also lack the politicians with the charisma, intellect, rectitude and courage that would be needed. This is rather unfortunate and there is very little one can do about it, especially that the new waves of anti-establishment progressive politicians have disappointed (just think of Tsipras or Corbyn). While on the side of the far right, there are too many charismatic, shrewd and successful populists who are winning (Orban, Farage, Le Penn etc.). Sadly, it is too late and we are heading towards uncharted waters. The only thing one can hope is that we don’t end up in another calamity like WWII. Read more

One would like to believe that this article might be the opening statement of a much-needed conversation amongst the people (including the British people) of Europe. Whatever their individual politics, every Eurpean has a stake in the future of a "Eropean" identity. Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.